Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Batz on November 26, 2003, 03:34:37 PM
-
Originally posted on the German WWIIOL forum
Full article Here (http://www.wwiionline.de/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=864)
What I found interesting is in Flight 7 center of the page where he mentions roll rate and dive speed.
@ 660kph "was extremely smooth and stable"
Kinda reminded me of F4UDOA's comment "locked in concrete above 400mph"
Anyway its a good read.
(http://home.t-online.de/home/dsperling/109_5n.jpg)
-
I've had to "hold short" for that plane a couple times in Chino; it is indeed beautiful (in a sinister sort of way). It's interesting that he describes it as being so docile-I was always under the impression that 109s were a real handful, particularly to land.
-
I say they replace the nazi symbol with the peace sign, or basicly the reversed swastika.:aok
-
now it'd be great if they did the same with a late model.
-
So the roll rate is at least 50% faster than a Spitfire MkV... Ahh I think we need to adjust the AH Bf109E4 as it currently rolls like bomber....
BTW this very airframe was flown by no less a pilot than Hans Joachim Marsailles!
-
You know when I went to chino in August I was looking and looking for this airplane and never saw it . I even asked the souvenier shop keeper if they had it and she just gave me a list of aircraft in there and the ones being restored including a Buchon 109.
Looks really cool I wanted to see it up close maybe next time :(
-
Originally posted by Glasses
You know when I went to chino in August I was looking and looking for this airplane and never saw it . I even asked the souvenier shop keeper if they had it and she just gave me a list of aircraft in there and the ones being restored including a Buchon 109.
Looks really cool I wanted to see it up close maybe next time :(
That's cause David Price had to sell it. Paul Allen has this bird now in Washington, although there is talk that it may be sold to a Canadian who made a ton of money off a lawsuit against Disney. He owns a Spit IX and is after a Hurricane and 109 as well.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
I've had to "hold short" for that plane a couple times in Chino; it is indeed beautiful (in a sinister sort of way). It's interesting that he describes it as being so docile-I was always under the impression that 109s were a real handful, particularly to land.
The 109 was difficult to land because of the "toe-in" of the landing gear that would amplify any swing or turn when on the ground. In the air everyone who has flown it says it's a beautiful plane to fly, very responsive and easy to handle.
-
50% faster at 450KPH 279MPH is not exactly a glowing endorsement.
The locked in concrete is a quote from the JG26 war diaries I believe. You will have to take that up with the Luftwaffe.
-
Did you even read it? It says minimum looping speed is 450KPH and gives no speed what so ever for roll rate.
The locked in concrete is quote from you,
I have never seen anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. It may be fast but if you can't maneuver at those speeds you are dead anyway.
Regardless of what Caldwell wrote in his JG26 Diaries the 109E control responses were not any better then the K.
Theres no need to rehash it. You say you never read anything that indicates a 109 sort is any less that locked in cement at 400MPH +. Well read above .....
-
Don't let the facts get in the way...
I think many of the assumptions we have about the 109 in high speed flight in flight sims started to get debunked with IL2 Sturmovik. Apparently the 109 although had heavier control was very much controlable at higher speeds. NOt as fast as the 190 but close.
-
Huh?
Actually the locked in Cement quote was from Kit Carson at 400MPH.
I know you don't wan't to hear it from the RAF or an American fighter pilot but there it is.
And yes I read your artical. It says very cleary that he climbed and reached a speed of 440KPH (273MPH)and performed the following test. Rate of roll etc. Sounds pretty specific to me.
In fact Kit Carson said the 109 rolled very well at 250MPH so in fact he agrees with your artical.
As far as the JG26 war diaries the quote is not from Caldwell it is from Georg Genth 109K4 combat pilot who states ""Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I cletched both hands together and strcuk the side of the stick as hard as I could. The unblievable happened- the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent attitude."
This corresponds with Kit Carson remarkes very well.
If you could provide a roll chart it would help very much toward your arguement.
-
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html)
-
No speed for roll rate is given.
In "Flight Seven" there is an alphabetical listing of the tests performed.
a. -
b. Maximum achieved speed at 3.0km, 1.15 ata / 2500 rpm = 440kmh IAS.
c. -
d. Roll rate
e. -
He could have even been well slower then 440kmh so we don’t know. Do you know the roll rate of a spit 5? If not how do you know if a 50% increase in roll claim is a "glowing endorsement" or not?
That’s not "my argument" anyway.
From 3.0km during the VNE dive he reached 660kmh. He described it as "smooth and stable" and stated he was "only limited by his altitude". He makes no mention of stick forces and certainly if the controls felt like they were "locked" in concrete he would have commented on it.
You claim you never saw anything to indicate that a 109 of any sort is any less then locked in cement at 400MPH. Well there you go.
Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I cletched both hands together and strcuk the side of the stick as hard as I could. The unblievable happened- the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent attitude.
Without the correct context (speed alt etc) the above quote means very little.
-
Three things.
1. If you can not deflect the ailerons without slamming both your hands against the stick for movement of the ailerons then they are non-maneuvable.
2. And yes I have a very detailed roll chart comparing the P-36, P-40 and Spit from 1941 (DSIR23/12177).
There is no Mark listed but I believe the V is a 1941 version and no changes in rolling without clipping the wings.
The roll rate shown at 250mph is 60dps and decreasing. This is not outstanding and there is no rate of roll listed for your 109. So 50% is a best guess. He was probably in the 85DPS range which is good but not really high speed.
3. Georg Genth does list speed. It is somewhere between 466MPH and 310MPH at 1,600FT. I just don't feel like typing the entire paragraph. In either case it is not maneurable. And this is a K-4, 466MPH is supposed to be barely above top speed.
You wouldn't happen to have any roll documents would you?
-
F4UDOA why do you even bother? Your ramblings, obvious bias and downright dishonesty in the "109's kill ratio" thread makes you for ever uninteresting in discussions about the 109 ... just like "Kit" Carson.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The FACT is that the 109 was ***** slapped into history in a big way.
This says all that needs to be known about you in this context.
-
Gsholz,
Can you prove otherwise? Or anything for that matter?
-
I think you've proved your own bias, by far. Tell me why do you even have documents on the 109 if you can't be bothered to learn to understand them or get them translated? Not to mention that that document you posted refuted your points on the DB's fuel economy, and STILL you posted it ... serious lack of judgment.
-
How did I dis-prove my theory? What was my theory?
BTW, how come I have all of the documents and you provide nothing?
Why don't you put down your pom-poms and stop being a cheerleader.
Prove something, take a stand instead of criticising what other people think.
-
Now that's rich, F4UDOA telling people to stop criticizing what other people think. Yeah right mister "Gsholz, You need your head examined really". You have rendered yourself inconsequential to all future debates on the 109. Feel free to post whatever you want, just don't expect people to take your post as being serious and honest, because they are not.
-
Gsholz,
You may want to take a look at my posting history before you start judging me.
I have put as much real data on these boards as anybody. But if you notice the only threads that seem to go off the rails is the ones where anything criticising the Luftwaffa is mentioned.
Not only here but on other community BBS as well. The "luftwabbles" have a reputaion that goes well beyond AH so I am not exactly worried about my credibility as long as I am producing real documents.
-
(http://home.t-online.de/home/dsperling/109_5n.jpg)
did you try to block the swastika :)
-
F4U simply because we resent as you do that the aircraft of LW like you would if it would be critical of the same allied aircraft of it being portrayed as something it was not.
Many pre conditioned ideas about a certain aircraft made by a pilot that didn't even touch or flew the aircraft, are being put up as gospel yet those who flew it and swore by it are being refuted just because they were from the other side. Yet, over and over including the Russians for that matter have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds again not as good as the 190s or a P-51 or P-47 but it maintained a good lateral control ability,however taking it out of dives from what I've read of several LW pilots was that it took some effort but it was recoverable non the less.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
F4U simply because we resent as you do that the aircraft of LW like you would if it would be critical of the same allied aircraft of it being portrayed as something it was not.
I think you hit it on the head Glasses. You defined exactly what F4UDOA was trying to say.
This isn't a new phenomenon as it happened on the AW boards and I'm sure the Warbirds boards. In particular the LW fans get way bent out of shape that something isn't working exactly the way they think it should. There's a rivet missing on a panal of a particular 190 and it's affecting the flight performance that should be better....etc etc. Then they find a particular quote or graph that backs their point regardless of whether there is conflicting opinion and attempt to bury folks under 'data'. Any critical comment must be because the poster is "from the Allied side".
Since when, can't someone enjoy the history of all the aircraft of WW2? When did we have to choose sides? hate to break it to ya folks, but this is a game last I checked and the war ended in 1945.
Just cause his name includes F4U must make him biased to Allied aircraft? Jeez, I like Spits, Mustangs, 38s, 109Es etc. Why do I have to take sides? I'd say that Hitech and company have done quite well representing both Axis and Allied aircraft.
Could it be that folks might just want to relax and enjoy the cyber flying. It's not real after all, just a place for us to imagine how it might have been :)
Including the latest 109E profile I did for fun. And frankly if I didn't get a panel line exactly right, I don't wanna know :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1070057766.jpg)
-
Glasses,
As Guppy said the tone of the Luftwaffe post are completely different from any other threads on any message board, AW, AH, WW2 online, IL2 etc.
It's not like the idea that at 400MPH the 109 became unmaneuverable is unfounded. There is allot of annecdotal eveidence out there that points that way.
If someone could just post some document that shows otherwise at 400MPH I could be convinced. But the doc that Batz shows clearly says 440KPH or 270MPH which matches Kit Carsons findings that the 109 rolled well at 250MPH.
-
Good luck trying to get that info. In a thread over at the Ubi Il-2 forum this went round and round with no answer forthcoming from the 2 major LW fanatics, Huckebein and Isegrim.
-
I don't dispute the fact the 109 was difficult to control compared to other aircraft at higher speeds. What I dispute is neccesarily that the aircraft was a lawndart at higher speeds,that's all. I'm not taking sides but what I'm saying is that some ideas we have about particular aircraft, may or not be true. That's all :D
-
F4UDOA
The article says the the aircraft was extremy smooth and stable at a 660kph dive which is 410mph. You cannot say that about AH 109E4. Smooth and stabledoes not equal "concrete."
Second, even if the roll rate is only for 440kph wich is certainly pssible just going by the article. The AH model is still wrong because the Spitfire V in AH rolls much faster at that speed anyway, not 50% slower as the article says.. Even the Spitfite Mk1 rolls just as good or better the 109E4 in AH.
So I feel this is something that should be looked into by HTC.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Could it be that folks might just want to relax and enjoy the cyber flying. It's not real after all, just a place for us to imagine how it might have been :)
Ahhh, common sense! What a rare sight on these boards!
Gentlemen, the world DOES NOT CARE if the Bf109 had control problems at high speeds. The endless bickering over charts, data and opinions frankly does make me want to scream : 'GET A LIFE!'
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Glasses,
As Guppy said the tone of the Luftwaffe post are completely different from any other threads on any message board, AW, AH, WW2 online, IL2 etc.
It's not like the idea that at 400MPH the 109 became unmaneuverable is unfounded. There is allot of annecdotal eveidence out there that points that way.
That`s quite ridiculus, especially when it comes from you. The "different tone" ? Hell, we have seen that from you, anyone just have to look up the "109 kill ratio" thread a bit below to see what exactly is F4UDOA`s tone when it comes that people are unwilling to accept his statements. .
Like his favourite about the locked-in-concrete-400mph-109s... he goes on and on again and again repeating this, on every forum, never ever backing it up with anything... time to time, we have to read these phrases about the "there`s countless many anecdotal evidence" stories from him. Yet I haven`t seen any of those from him. Read: I asked him - about how many, 8 or ten times by now ? - to support his views. He`s just INCAPABLE OF THAT every time. He just parrots it. Yet he critizises others for the lack of data.
So as it stands Mr. F4U claims that 109s had poor roll rate at high speed, he`s unable to back it up, and accuses others being biased when it`s his bias that become dead obvious with his poor arguements and mindless zealotry over that question.
Well I think we all well remember F4U`s classic at the 109 kill ratio thread about C-3. :rofl
"Yeah I still don`t care what C-3 is".
Yet you showed similiar zeal regarding it. LOL. A true classic. How do you except people to take you seriously ?
-
So Barbi where are the roll rate graphs for the late model 109s?
Just more of your gum flapping.
-
Here are quick and dirty calculations again based instrumented test of the Bf 109F-2 (by DVL). Later models without flettner tabs are not much different.
IAS 30lbs 50lbs
mph deg/s deg/s
200 80 80
240 65 85
280 50 88
320 37 90
360 22 45
400 11 25
Will be published pretty soon in one form or another.
gripen
-
Gripen it appears that your calculations way overestimate the neccesary stick forces required for roll rates by a factor of 2.5 ...
Ie. notice what your data gives for 280 mph : 30 lbs required for 50 degree / sec roll...
I recall that you have already posted these numbers, but Niklas told you that you have made some mistakes in your calculations.
Look at how this compare to what the pilot`s tell :
Dave Southwood on G-2/trop:
"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."
Dave Soutwood states 80-90 deg / sec at 285mph, but requiring only 20 lbs instead of your stated 50 lbs....
Marh Hanna flying the buchon stated very similiar roll rate to the Mustang at 300mph with one hand, that would also imply roughly 90 deg/sec at 20-25 lbs stick force.
Also I have got results of Finnish flight tests with 109G, which stated "10kg stick force required at 450 km/h for a little less than 90 deg/sec roll rate.
I was also told by buhc that German calculations for 109F roll rate gave 94 degree / sec at 480 km/h.
Appearantly your 50 lbs numbers refer to only 20 lbs stickforce, a lot less than half of what the pilot could use. Using full force would of course yield far higher roll rates.
Also, regarding your statement that "later models with Flettner tabs were not much different", I would like to know the base of this, as there are actual tests done on 7.10.44 on Wn 18550, a test plane with aileron Flettners at 3330 kg weight. Test pilot was still able to deflect the ailerons 2/3s at Mach .75 / 770 kph, a very good result indeed for a non power-boosted plane.
In short, your calculations do not match the results of anybody else`s results . Perhaps you can tell us how you arrived at them ?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
So Barbi where are the roll rate graphs for the late model 109s?
Why do I have to prove anything ? It`s F4U who states something, so he has to prove it. Gee, next time he says the world is flat, would that mean I *have to* travel around the globe to disprove it..? :D
But I am sure guys like you and him will understand each other very well, as both of you have the bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe, which reflects in your posts. Well, this is the attitude that made people to ignore you completely on here and other boards. Your barking don`t deserve the attention.
Why don`t you just go back to your little troll cave?
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
But I am sure guys like you and him will understand each other very well, as both of you have the bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe, which reflects in your posts.
Look at what you wrote. "Bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe"
You've gotta be kidding right? Aces High=game. Is it possible that your glasses are so clouded by your assumption that there is a bias that you can't see the forest for the trees?
I'll agree with you on one thing though. F4UDOA should give up participating in these debates, cause no one is listening. I would disagree that it's his fault however :)
Dan/Slack
-
It would be worthwhile for the big political pansies to post informative posts or shut the fu(k up.
Find each other's emails or street adresses and resolve your problems in private, no one else here gives a stinking watermelon if you are better heat seeking puke spewers than one another.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Look at what you wrote. "Bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe"
You've gotta be kidding right? Aces High=game. Is it possible that your glasses are so clouded by your assumption that there is a bias that you can't see the forest for the trees?
I'll agree with you on one thing though. F4UDOA should give up participating in these debates, cause no one is listening. I would disagree that it's his fault however :)
Dan/Slack
I would say a good number of the folks who posts on this A & V forum don’t play AH. There is nothing wrong with that because these are discussions about aircraft not game play. There are a lot of guys who post with good info who don’t care one way or another how HT makes his game. I don't play AH. I don’t think Isegrim, MiloMorai, Gripen, Niklas or Hohun play either.
This is the Aircraft and Vehicles Forum not the Gameplay forum. Outside of what GRUNHERZ said no one here even mentioned AH modeling.
If you don't like these topics or the type of discussions then why bother reading these threads? No one is spamming you, or calling you at home, or forcing you in anyway to click on any thread in this forum.
BTW you can search F4's replies or just check his replies in the 109-kill ratio thread.
-
Originally posted by Batz
I would say a good number of the folks who posts on this A & V forum don’t play AH. There is nothing wrong with that because these are discussions about aircraft not game play. There are a lot of guys who post with good info who don’t care one way or another how HT makes his game. I don't play AH. I don’t think Isegrim, MiloMorai, Gripen, Niklas or Hohun play either.
This is the Aircraft and Vehicles Forum not the Gameplay forum. Outside of what GRUNHERZ said no one here even mentioned AH modeling.
If you don't like these topics or the type of discussions then why bother reading these threads? No one is spamming you, or calling you at home, or forcing you in anyway to click on any thread in this forum.
BTW you can search F4's replies or just check his replies in the 109-kill ratio thread.
Yer right Batz, it was my mistake for assuming I might learn something or enjoy a thread involving the 109E. They do tend to lead to pissing contests, which amazes me. Any thoughts on why this seems to be so Luftwaffe based?
Dan/Slack
-
Gents,
Weather you agree or disagree with me the Fact is that the Luftwaffe post go off the rails consistantly. This is not my fault as I avoid most LW threads for just this reason. Batz brought me into this one on his initial post.
Batz,
You and I have a history that has nothing to do with the recent post. You can act like you have the high road but the fact is you have an axe to grind because I (and others) have pointed out the fact that you arrange the scenarios in a very biased fashion to favor your side (the axis) by removing certain aircraft amoung other things. You brought up the "locked in cement" coment which comes from Kit Carson. So instead of attacking me why don't you provide evidence to the contrary of Carson, surely you have something?
I won't even address Isegrim because he is the worst poison of all all these boards and all WW2 boards. Why not ask Butch2K or Neilstirling from the (now gone) WW2 boards where Isegrim would have these debacles regularly with anyone who disagreed with his propaganda.
There are many types of personalities on the boards. But Isegrims type is a "tourist". He does not play the game, he is not part of the community and does not provide any of his own data to the arguement. He just waits for the thread to start then starts picking at data provided by others. I have ask him several questions none of which he can provide asnwers to because he has none and he won't be here long enough to back up anything he says anyway.
-
I have arranged scenarios that excluded aircraft?
When was this?
In Okinawa it was me who requested both the chog and f4u-1 (FAA) be included and that at least 1 group of f4u-4s remain after aub was considering dropping them. All we asked for and got is 1 additional group of nikis and to have the a6m2 replaced with a6m5s. But it was up to the scenario designer and CMs to decide what planes to allow and which to exclude. I was a ct cm and never ran Pac setup to include or exclude any of your favorite planes. So whatever “facts” you think you have “pointed out” are all in your head.
I am not taking the "high road". What I am telling Guppy is since he already knows how these threads end up (he even tells of his experience in AW) then why bother reading them if he's so put off by them.
You can't blame other posters after all they aren’t forcing him or anyone to read these threads. If he chooses to suffer through them then he can suffer through in silence. Playing the fake arsed Rodney King "Can't we all just get along" and it’s "just a game" won’t inspire change in any one. He should know this by his own experience.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
But I am sure guys like you and him will understand each other very well, as both of you have the bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe, which reflects in your posts. Well, this is the attitude that made people to ignore you completely on here and other boards. Your barking don`t deserve the attention.
In truth Barbi, you would be ignored if it was not for your fanatical stance on anything Nazi. Bias and hatred??:rofl That is you with regards to American and British a/c. As for other boards, I have not been not been told my presence was not wanted, unlike you!!! - a certain armour forum. You were the laughing stock on the old OnWar forum. Or the 'new' offshoot of the OnWar forum, where you were told to 'shape up or ship out'. It is so nice now on the Ubi forums without your posts - no flame wars. You draw flame wars like flies to the manure. I was even asked to join a new board which would rather not have you around. Now I wunder why that is? Could it be because of your lack of civility in your posts? (ie. being antagonistic and the subtle insults)
As for the roll graphs, what better way to shut people up and prove that the late model 109s had good roll rates. All we see is more of your gum flappin.
Flettner tabs were the exception rather than the rule with only ~10% of the 109K-4s so fitted (as per Butch2k).
-
What makes this tiresome is stuff like this:
Like his favourite about the locked-in-concrete-400mph-109s... he goes on and on again and again repeating this, on every forum, never ever backing it up with anything... time to time, we have to read these phrases about the "there`s countless many anecdotal evidence" stories from him. Yet I haven`t seen any of those from him. Read: I asked him - about how many, 8 or ten times by now ? - to support his views. He`s just INCAPABLE OF THAT every time. He just parrots it. Yet he critizises others for the lack of data.
Where you then respond with stuff like this to support your position:
Marh Hanna flying the buchon stated very similiar roll rate to the Mustang at 300mph with one hand, that would also imply roughly 90 deg/sec at 20-25 lbs stick force.
Which for some strange, obviously accidental reason omits the very next sentence:
The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates.
The full link to the flight test is here, along with the 1940 RAF test of the 109E. http://www.bf109.com/flying.html
Here is the general flight impression:
The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !
Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.
The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.
So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profusion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.
Charon
-
MiloMorai, at least Isegrims insults are subtle. You seem to be a complete a-hole.
Isegrim, first Mark Hanna did not fly a Buchon in that test. He flew a 109J which is a prototype export early 109G6.
(http://www.bf109.com/images/109flying2.jpg)
Secondly, you need to read posts more carefully. Gripen said "without" not "with".
Charon, "Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates." Which means that "meaningful" roll rates WERE possible at high speed using two hands, and that the controls were NOT "locked in concrete". Thank you.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
MiloMorai, at least Isegrims insults are subtle. You seem to be a complete a-hole.
And it takes one to know one.:D :rofl :D :rofl :D :rofl :eek:
They are only subtle in the beginning, wait till he gets warmed up and calls someone a pedophile, which he has done.
........
What is a "meaniful" roll rate?
-
On second thought, you seem to be a child.
-
Isegrim,
Why don't read what I replied when Niklas argued about that data? These things are quite simple if you know what are talking about. The instrumented data set from DVL gives curves for roll performance at 3km, speed is given in TAS (km/h), roll rate in radians/s and stick forces in kg. So to get roughly comparable data with NACA and RAE reports speed must be converted to IAS (mph), radians to deg/s and stick forces to lbs. These calculations are all I made and Niklas just did not understood that speed must be converted to IAS (as you might noted he did not continue...). Perhaps you can ask Niklas if I have made errors, he has this report.
About your G-2/trop data it should be noted that this anecdotal measurement does not give altitude nor tell is the speed in TAS or IAS. So lets quess that Mr. Southwood really measured stick forces somehow (quite difficult without special instruments) and altitude was say 6000m and speed is TAS. At 6000m 460km/h TAS is about 340km/h IAS (about 210mph IAS). Given that we know that (DVL report also supports this) ailerons of the Bf 109 lightened at high altitude there is not much difference between DVL data (just check the data set)
And Mr. Hanna (anecdotal again) does not mention is the speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again).
At least my copy of capt. Kokko's report ( Finnish test report on Bf 109G-2) does not contain aileron stick force measurements. And again you or your source don't tell is speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again). Actually I believe you source is "Lentäjän Näkökulma II" which does not tell is the speed IAS or TAS nor altitude (again).
And I have not stated "later models with Flettner tabs were not much different". Please, read my post again (hint: there is word "out" somewhere).
And I have that German calculation on microfilm and as "buch" noted, it's just a calculation and actually it contain clear error on 360deg roll calculation part.
That data you got from LEMB (I quess you have not actually seen the report) is a bit different beacause now we have speed in TAS and mach number. If TAS is 770km/h and mach number 0,75 then altitude must be around 10000m (actually there appears to be an error because then mach 1 is 1027km/h?). Again we must convert TAS to IAS and 770km/h TAS is roughly 465km/h IAS (290mph IAS; this is very unaccurate because we don't know conditions). Actually DVL data indicates that higher than 2/3 deflection should be possible at 290mph IAS.
gripen
-
Just in case someone should manage to repeat the question of where my "locked in concrete" statement came from.
Here is the entire link to the Kit Carson Best of breed comments on the 109.
Best of Breed (http://users.aol.com/dheitm8612/breed.htm)
Here is the excerpt I was qouting from. He actually said "set in a bucket of cement". My bad, I guess I will have to plead guilty here.
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph and 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on
the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder
At low speeds the rudder was light but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the suggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me-109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
did you try to block the swastika :)
That's off a .de page; and Nazi symbols are (still) illegal in Germany.
My apologies for not throwing mud, but personally I think it's a pretty plane at any speed or roll rate...
-
Scholzy, every time I see your name I am reminded of the fat comical German in Hogan's Heros.:p
Now, what is a 'meaningful' roll rate or are to taking gum flappin lessons from Barbi?.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Isegrim, first Mark Hanna did not fly a Buchon in that test. He flew a 109J which is a prototype export early 109G6.
Not gonna argue flight test data with you GScholz, but will question the 109J export G6 bit. The "109" in your photo is a converted Buchon owned by the Messerschmitt Foundation in Germany. Are you sure this is the bird Mark Hanna flew?
Mark Hanna ended up dying in the crash of the OFMC Buchon a couple years ago.
Charles Church's Spits are mentioned. He also owned a Buchon at one point that is now in the US. Mark Hanna may have had time in that one.
The former Hans Ditte "109G10" is also a converted Buchon. Mark Hanna had some time in this bird too I believe during 95-96 when they operated the aircraft in England. I don't know that he had any time in the one you picture as that one has spent more time on the ground than in the air, having had more then it's share of accidents.
The only real 109, prior to the David Price 109E was the well known Black 6 109G2 that also crashed a few years back and is now static at the RAF Museum. I don't believe Hanna flew that one either.
So for folks to say Mark Hanna was flying a Buchon is accurate as more then likely it is the one he died in or the converted Buchon of Hans Ditte in 95-96
Dan/Slack
-
Found an interesting article about flying Black 6, the 109G2 that is now static at the RAF Museum. It was written by David Southwind, who did much of the display flying in Black 6
Regarding rolls:
"Roll performance is slow and similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire, a full stick roll through 360 degrees at 286mph(460kph) taking 4 to 4.5 seconds if rudder coordination is not used. At lower speeds the rate of roll is markedly less when rolling to the right unless very careful rudder inputs are made. Therefore I generally fly rolls to the left."
Does this mean the 109E rolled better then later 109s, or is this contradictory to Charlie Brown's experience with the 109E?
Quoting him again "In summary Black 6 is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high trying to keep straight on take-off and landing and there is a lot of footwork needed in flight to keep the slipball central. It is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect."
Dan/Slack
-
The problem with these "restored" warbirds is that most of them are more like complete rebuilt ie the original plane has been used mostly as model for rebuilding (some parts might be actually redesigned). This is specially true when talking about wrecks like this Bf 109E and other good examples are those P-40s from Russia. Therefore it's not allways good idea to draw cocnlusions about original planes based on these almost new built planes. It should be also noted that current warbirds rarely contain all equipment of the original (guns, armour, self sealing tanks etc.).
gripen
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I won't even address Isegrim because he is the worst poison of all all these boards and all WW2 boards. Why not ask Butch2K or Neilstirling from the (now gone) WW2 boards where Isegrim would have these debacles regularly with anyone who disagreed with his propaganda.
:rofl `Kay, why not ask Butch or Neil ? After all, I had very good discussions with them, both are capable of discussing things in detail in an intelligent manner, and I can learn a lot from both of them, unlike from you...
BTW, just in case if anyone interested, I am "propaganda" according to poor F4U ever since we had a discussion on AAW forums, which started to be friendly one, until F4U came up as usual with the bull about locked in cement concrete, slapped into history, nonexistent roll rate at high speed. Then I corrected him showing qoutes from Mark Hanna, Dave Southwood. He couldn`t stand corrected, and so he went increasingly hysterical, using the phrases he does now and other times, propaganda, nazi etc., and asked me to show him a roll rate document. I did, and this made him completely mad, and ever since he has allergic reactions to 109s and me, from which all of these boards suffer.
So no mate, I am not a poison, it`s that you`re the cancer, and I am the cure.
I have ask him several questions none of which he can provide asnwers to because he has none and he won't be here long enough to back up anything he says anyway.
LOL, again. You have been asking me answer here? Funny I can`t recall that, nor could other, I can only remember your posts look like a raptured septic tank, unless you refer to our previous discussion. Just to brush your mind, You were claiming in your usual frenzy that the K-4`s performance was limited by the amount of "C-3" it carried ... Perhaps it was then when you asked how much "C-3" it carried, and I answered 400 liters... since as usual, you did not have the slightest idea about what you claimed, as C-3 is simply aviation fuel :rofl ... But you wouldn`t be F4U if you would just simply admitted you were wrong, no, you HAD TO prove that everyone else must be an *ss if he disagrees with you.
But let`s see his reactions :
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100221&perpage=50&pagenumber=6
"Isegirl"
"By the way C-3 is only 96 octane anyway. Who cares whats in it. "
" It shows fuel consumption on the other pages. I only posted it to show your nimrod butt buddy that I had something he doesn't obviously. "
"BTW Isagirl is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?"
"Actually I have posted more real data on these webpages than you dweebs combined. "
Note : This one must be his favourite idea, The Great F4U Posts More Data Than Anyobody Else. :lol
"I always find it amusing when Luftwaffles talk about civility"
"I still don't care what's in C-3."
Well I guess anyone can make up his mind about wheter it`s worths to listen to F4U`s accusations about propaganda, bias and insults... I certainly won`t, if needed, there are the mods to deal with flamers.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
They are only subtle in the beginning, wait till he gets warmed up and calls someone a pedophile, which he has done.
When did I called anyone a pedophile, Liar ? You are so pathethic with your lies about others, all you have did on this thread is making up ugly stories about others. You are a child, others got it right.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Isegrim,
Why don't read what I replied when Niklas argued about that data? These things are quite simple if you know what are talking about. The instrumented data set from DVL gives curves for roll performance at 3km, speed is given in TAS (km/h), roll rate in radians/s and stick forces in kg. So to get roughly comparable data with NACA and RAE reports speed must be converted to IAS (mph), radians to deg/s and stick forces to lbs. These calculations are all I made and Niklas just did not understood that speed must be converted to IAS (as you might noted he did not continue...). Perhaps you can ask Niklas if I have made errors, he has this report. [/qoute]
Why ask him again, Gripen? He said it already that you got it wrong... AFAIK, he`s a trained engineer in aerodynamics, and usually knows what he talks about.
About your G-2/trop data it should be noted that this anecdotal measurement does not give altitude nor tell is the speed in TAS or IAS. So lets quess that Mr. Southwood really measured stick forces somehow (quite difficult without special instruments) and altitude was say 6000m and speed is TAS. At 6000m 460km/h TAS is about 340km/h IAS (about 210mph IAS). Given that we know that (DVL report also supports this) ailerons of the Bf 109 lightened at high altitude there is not much difference between DVL data (just check the data set)
OK, so in brief, you say to ignore the dataset that doesn`t agrees with you, or, alternatively, modify it`s circumstances until it matches your version ? Sorry, that`s very cheap.
And Mr. Hanna (anecdotal again) does not mention is the speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again).
Okay, so let`s ignore it again, as it again does not match your data...
BTW, he mentions the circumstances, which can rule out most of the variations :
"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm.
But then again, the core is that he mentions that the plane at 300mph is comparable to the Mustang (which is around 90 deg/sec), and managable with one hand. The latter would imply about 20-25 lbs stickforce, ie. the force a mature man can convinently apply to the sideways in a similiar sitting position with hands low.
Of course that means that the pilot can use more force on the stick, and as it goes heavier beyond 300mph, he can still deflect them for a time, which means the roll rate does not drop immidiately over 300mph.
At least my copy of capt. Kokko's report ( Finnish test report on Bf 109G-2) does not contain aileron stick force measurements. And again you or your source don't tell is speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again). Actually I believe you source is "Lentäjän Näkökulma II" which does not tell is the speed IAS or TAS nor altitude (again).
So it doesn`t agree, ignore it again, right ?
And I have not stated "later models with Flettner tabs were not much different". Please, read my post again (hint: there is word "out" somewhere).
Sorry I misread that.
And I have that German calculation on microfilm and as "buch" noted, it's just a calculation and actually it contain clear error on 360deg roll calculation part.
Perhaps you can expand on that "clear error" ?
That data you got from LEMB (I quess you have not actually seen the report) is a bit different beacause now we have speed in TAS and mach number. If TAS is 770km/h and mach number 0,75 then altitude must be around 10000m (actually there appears to be an error because then mach 1 is 1027km/h?). Again we must convert TAS to IAS and 770km/h TAS is roughly 465km/h IAS (290mph IAS; this is very unaccurate because we don't know conditions). Actually DVL data indicates that higher than 2/3 deflection should be possible at 290mph IAS.
You do the same as with the case before, modifing the numbers until they would match your arguement. You put the altitude into great heights, because otherwise you couldn`t arrive at low enough IAS numbers; the high ones doesn`t fit you. First I am not sure wheter those numbers are IAS or TAS, they could easily be IAS as well, which would mean the altitude can be just as well 5000m or so - you seem to forget that Mach number varies with temperature as well. This would ruin your whole hypothesis.
To summarize, what I seen here was that you used a roll rate test at given numbers, but instead of simply giving the original results, you started to convert them on your own way, which is said to be wrong by a trained aerodynamics engineer, and your results do not agree with the tellings of Mark Hanna, Dave Southwood, and neither they match the 109F calcs Butch has qouted, nor the results of Finnish tests... basically nothing and nobody agrees with your numbers, yet you want to IGNORE ALL OF THESE, and claim that only your numbers are correct. Why the complication, why not just post the original results of the DVL tests, why the need to show something else all the time, which is, anyway we look at it, is YOUR, already questioned data, not DVL`s ? Those would be certainly more believable.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Not gonna argue flight test data with you GScholz, but will question the 109J export G6 bit. The "109" in your photo is a converted Buchon owned by the Messerschmitt Foundation in Germany. Are you sure this is the bird Mark Hanna flew?
This is the title of the artice posted earlier.
"Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain)."
And from bf109.com evolution table:
Bf 109J - Proposed Spanish licence-built version; not proceeded with.
I do not know the details though.
-
GScholz,
The OFMC was a Merlin engined HA-1112MIL, a veteran of the Battle of Britain Movie, Piece of Cake, and Memphis Belle. It is also the plane that Mark Hanna died in.
Photo is of that bird. Someone was taking some creative license when they called it a 109J for that article :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1070215770.jpg)
-
Originally posted by gripen
The problem with these "restored" warbirds is that most of them are more like complete rebuilt ie the original plane has been used mostly as model for rebuilding (some parts might be actually redesigned). This is specially true when talking about wrecks like this Bf 109E and other good examples are those P-40s from Russia. Therefore it's not allways good idea to draw cocnlusions about original planes based on these almost new built planes. It should be also noted that current warbirds rarely contain all equipment of the original (guns, armour, self sealing tanks etc.).
gripen
I'd agree with that, which to me gives the Black 6 article some credibility as it wasn't a rebuilt wreck and was about as original as it was going to get in this day and age, at least prior to the crash that grounded it.
Dan/Slack
-
(http://www.bf109.com/images/109flying2.jpg)
Well, this is the picture used in the article, and Mark Hanna wrote it himself. However a mistake may have been made by the bf109 webhost.
Btw. How did Mark Hanna die?
Edit: NM, he burned. What a horrible way to go. Was the 109 a total loss?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
(http://www.bf109.com/images/109flying2.jpg)
Well, this is the picture used in the article, and Mark Hanna wrote it himself. However a mistake may have been made by the bf109 webhost.
Btw. How did Mark Hanna die?
Edit: NM, he burned. What a horrible way to go. Was the 109 a total loss?
There's some debate as to how much of the Buchon/109 wreckage remains. Some sources say it was all scrapped, but considering the 'dataplate' restorations done these days, it's possible it may reappear in some form.
Dan/Slack
-
The 109 caught fire as Hanna was landing. Hanna didn't die in the landing/crash, but rather died from the burns later in hospital. I can't imagine they let the 109 just burn.
-
Isegrim,
Niklas is most welcomed to join discussion any time to clear this issue to you, I have gave him couple documents including this DVL report and NACA report on P-36, P-40, Hurricane and Spitfire.
I have not tried to ignore or modify any data you have bring in discussion, all I have done is some quick conversions to keep data sets roughly comparable. You argued that values on this DVL report are way off and presented various anecdotal comments without defining conditions or form of values behind them (IAS/TAS, altitude) and I have merely pointed out that at certain conditions they seem to agree pretty well with DVL data. Your data actually makes this possible because you don't seem to know form of values, that mach 0,75 claim is a good example. For meaningfull discussion you should define your data better; IAS/TAS, altitude, peak roll rate or time for given bank etc. these are all clearly defined on DVL report.
Mentioned clear error in the Messerschmitt AG calculations is that they use max roll rate value for to calculate 360deg roll time. This ignores acceleration and deacceleration of the roll.
DVL report will be probably available to all from Niklas's site (after something else comes out first (possibly before end of the year, I don't know I'm not the writer).
gripen
-
Quote from Mark Hanna's evaluation of the BF109J.
[q]The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again ! [/quote]
Isigrem,
Where does it say the 109 rolls even reasonably well at 400MPH? In fact it says it is solid after 300MPH. You either can read or you are the dumbest person I have ever spoken too. Oh yeah, you are.
Go away tourist, the little bus is leaving town. Buh, Bye!!
-
"After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates"
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension?
-
Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine's test pilot took a ride in a 109E. He said the rollrate was every bit as bad, if not worse than the fabric-aileron Spit I's roll rate. At 400 mph the 109 did not roll at all any more.
The confined space in the 109's cockpit also did not allow much both hand leverage on the stick, and also remember that the sideways stick travel was extremely little.
Spit pilots however were blessed with a lucky co-incidense, - being able to jab one elbow to the cockpit side for better one-hand leverage, and also being able to use both hands more effectively.
The amazing roll rate of the P-36 was for instance mostly a clever combination of stick travel and gearing.
Now from 109F onwards, the 109's roll rate got improved by new ailerons, and stayed decent untill rather high speeds.
The Spit also fixed their problem with the metal ailerons from Spit V onwards (some spit V's still had fabric ailerons, which got swapped out later). However, the Spit always had to be tuned and tested with each set of ailerons (a lot of factory/test pilot work). Some Spits were reported to be "rogue" aircraft with bad behavior,and I guess that most manufacturers in WW2 had some of that as well.
Charlie Brown is I belive a seasoned Spit V pilot. If he is who I think, I have seen him at Duxford, - very British guy and even mounting a big mustache!
I do not know much about his Spit V, but it would not surprize me if many of today's Spits were a bit out of trim compared to what the test pilots of old concidered good. Many of them of course are combined with parts and spares from several planes, and so are doubtlessly many other old warbirds.
Charlie's comment on the 109's performance rather surprized me at first, but looking deeper into it, it all seems quite normal.
Firstly, he did not try out the 109 at extreme speeds, save one shallow dive. And at that speed the 109 would easily pull out.
Secondly, his delight with the 109's roll rate goes about medium speed, where indeed most would agree that the 109 was all over a delightful plane. He seems to have been pleasantly surprized with the aircraft, which indicates that he did not have too high hopes for it.
By the way, did you see that part about looping not being too easy? That surprized me quite a bit, looks like one easy way for a Spit to shake a 109 off then, - I've seen a Spit IX go directly into a loop from takeoff!
Anyway, another semi biased 109 thread...yawwwnnn
-
Gsholz,
What does solid mean to you?? Could you please draw a curve of meaningful or explain how that statement proves that the 109 had any quality of rollrate at 400MPH?
Because there is absolutely nothing there that says that. It is not even a statement that comes close to trying to make your point.
What is your point again??
-
Meaningful (i.e. useful) role rates were achievable above 300 mph with the use of both hands. That's what that means.
-
Where does it say the 109 rolls even reasonably well at 400MPH? In fact it says it is solid after 300MPH. You either can read or you are the dumbest person I have ever spoken too. Oh yeah, you are.
[/B]
Just yesterday asked this question from mr. Erkki Pakarinen, Me 109 G combat pilot from HLeLv 24.
He commented, just like last week mr. Torsti Tallgren, 109 G-6 pilot, that the roll rate was still good in high speeds of 600 km and over. Both spesififed that roll rate did not get remarkably worse as speed increased. The stick forces did increase very much with horizontal stabilizers though.
There was large differences between 109 models between D-E-F-G-K. Each new version was better with high speed conrols than the previous ones and at least by G-6 models high speed roll rate was rated "good".
-
Each version also had a more powerful engine, weighted more, thus had a higher wing loading, and while high speed handling was gradually improving, low speed handling was getting worse.
Pretty much the same with other aircraft at the same time going through the same phase of development ;)
-
Gsholz,
Could you please draw a meaningful curve for roll rates. I would luv to see what that means or how meaningful is proof of anything that could be considered valid test data.
-
Why don't you draw a cruve for "pretty solid"? LOL you're amazing, you use this anectodal evidence in one post and dismiss it in the next. I have yet to see a roll curve for the 109G, do you have one? If not then I suggest you just STFU.
-
Gsholz,
Yes I can draw curve for pretty solid. It looks allot like a straight line. It is also defined in multiple locations by various pilots Kit Carson, RAE testing and Mark Hanna.
As defined by Kit Carson
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
That is pretty solid. Of course it is no where solid as the substance that fills your head. That is solid rock.
-
DVL report gives following stick force values for Bf 109F-2 at 750km/h TAS (about 400mph IAS depending on conditions) at 3000m. 20kg to move stick 3deg (full movement 15deg) and 30kg to move stick 5deg, graph does not give directly initial stick force but it seems to be around 10kg.
At least Messerschmitt AG uses values of the F model for calculations of the G model and physically ailerons (without flettners) appear to be very similar on both models. I have not seen evidence if ailerons were modified for G model.
gripen
-
Is that all about ailerons? How about rudder and elevator response above 300 mph?
-
From here (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html).
[Carson]
"(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter. "[/Carson]
Well, "unmaneuverable" is tough eh? What Carson doesn´t say is that the same report mentions equal roll rate of a Spitfire and a 109 up to 400mph... so the Spit was an unmanoeverable aircraft too?? I already said that Carson is often quoting the RAE test report of the 109-E. In the very same document, the following chart is included, comparing the aileron force of a 109-E to the Spit-1:
(http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/aileron_force.gif)
Now what does this chart tell us? The 109-E needed for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. To build up the same moment like in a 109, the stick of a spitfire must have been 54% longer, so it probably would have looked out of the roof window...
Why didn´t Carson mention the worse stickforce characteristics of the Spit-1, which is written down in the same report he uses for his article? I think you, the reader, slowly gets an impression about the bias of Carson and the way he choses and presents his data...
It also should be noted that in technical language you distinguish between an observation, a judgement based on given requirements, and a conclusion. Of course the ailerons of the 109 were never as light and as effective like the FW190 one´s, BUT the german chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais did very early disagree with the negative judgement and tactical conclusion of the RAF. It should be noted again that the english test is based on a SINGLE aircraft that saw plenty of service already. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown who also critized the 109. His major critic points were:
- Bad control harmony characteristics
- Bad wheel brakes
- Aileron impuls during opening of the slats
Guess what, strangley Eric Brown REFUSED to get into a discussion about such questions. Did the 109 has to be bad for the english? Handley Page would have known how to solve the unsymmetric opening, why did noone from the RAF ask them?
There exist german test report where aileron forces of over 45lbs are mentioned. So high stick forces WERE possible also in the 109!
Let´s go on:
[Carson]
"To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick."[/Carson]
100lb, 45kg, so what? This is no extraordinary high force for pulling. Did english test pilots lack muscles?
The following document shows that the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of even 85kg!! And this was a realistic assumption!
(http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Ruderkraefte.gif)
[GScholz]
So you can see that the 109 was designed for 85 kg max pull, 70 kg max push on the stick and 150 kg foot pressure. If you can't pull 85 kg with both hands you're a wuss and wouldn't have been accepted in the LW in the first place. [/GScholz]
-
Hehe, GScholz,somebody must have touched a nerve, you usually don't do so many spelling mistakes.
Wuss or not, the Spitfire pilot would be able to cope with higher stick forces for the sole reason of being able to use both hands better, and also being able to "lock" the stick by jabbing the elbow to the side.
BTW, I think the Spit stick was very much longer,- 50% definately.
(from memory by looking at them)
Add to that the fact that the 109Ehad no rudder trim, so that the pilot would have to have a heavy boot on one rudder pedal at high speeds. That does touch the so-named control harmony, where the Spitfire on the other hand could be trimmed to fly totally hands off.
(I'd really like to know if this didn'tget fixed in later 109 models just like the aileron problem was. Anybody?)
I am not sure about the 109's throttle controls, but on the Spit those were operated with the left hand,- hence in times of trouble, sometimes only one hand was available for the stick.
BTW, your chart presumably compares the Spit I and the 109E right?
Now getting into the wuss blackout muscle thingie, you must realize that as a comparison, the Spitfire would need very little sticforce for the same thing. Too little actually, later being fixed!!!
I'll armwrestle you anytime with a 100 lbs handicap!!!!
Anyway, keep the stuff coming,and good night
;)
-
Gsholz,
Two things.
1. I am no fan of the Spitfire either. Nice airplane but I wouldn't want to fly it in combat. My preferance.
2. By comparison from the F4U-1D had average stick forces of 5lbs per G and required only 20lbs to pull 5Gs. That is what I would consider light. By contrast the F6F-5 required 12.5lbs per G and was considered to be "boardering on excessive".
BTW, If you want I will stop the sarcasm and continue with just data.
-
Angus, I didn't write all that, just the last part between the [GScholz][/GScholz] tags. Your "long stick" ;) argument is fine except that in the chart I posted the lbs forces were measured "on top of stick". The 109E was 20 lbs lighter on the aileron controls at 400 mph than the Spit-1 even with it's longer stick.
F4UDOA, I know the 109 was heavy on the controls at high speeds, that is not in dispute. I am however disputing the claim that the controls were "set in concrete" and that the 109 was unable to maneuver at those speeds. Yes the controls were considerably heavier than on most late-war fighters, but any grown man can pull 100 lbs on a stick mounted in front of him when he's strapped to a seat.
And yes, please dispense with the elementary school insult games. It's getting tiring.
-
GODO,
DVL report is about aileron stick forces, wing twist due to aileron deflection and it also gives some data about elasticity of the controll system. Controll forces of other controll surfaces are not discused.
GScholz and F4UDOA,
Actually RAE report on Bf 109E praises ailerons up to speed 250mph (just like the article mentioned in the beginning of this thread), below this speed RAE rated lateral controll of the Bf 109E better than Spitfire I. Above that speed attainable angle of bank was quite similar on both fighters at similar stick forces. In the Bf 109F lateral controll was not as good at low speed because they had to ad those round wing tips, at high speed lateral controll improved somewhat just like RAE notes in their 109F report. The Spitfire V got metal ailerons and low speed controll remained about same while at high speed controll forces lightened considerably, stick forces for small deflections are quite light as NACA report states while large deflections require still high stick force.
To sum up; the Bf 109E had overall better aileron controll than Spitfire I, specially at lower speeds. The Spitfire V had overall better aileron controll than Bf 109F, specially at high speed, at low speed Bf 109F had lighter but not as effective lateral controll as Spitfire V.
gripen
-
Oh no, this is going to become another 109 vs. Spit roll rate duel. What have I done.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gsholz,
Yes I can draw curve for pretty solid. It looks allot like a straight line. It is also defined in multiple locations by various pilots Kit Carson, RAE testing and Mark Hanna.
As defined by Kit Carson
That is pretty solid. Of course it is no where solid as the substance that fills your head. That is solid rock.
Hheehheheheheheeheh. Amusing :)
You quote Kit Carson as "solid".
Are you aware that Carson never flew 109 and is quite totally clueless on his writings? His 109 article has been almost totally debunked as he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. That text happily mixed about all 109 versions from E to K to a single summary, which is about as incorrect as anything can be. That's why he is usually called "Storyteller Carson".
You're pretty desparate if you try to refer to his writings and claim it as "solid rock" :)
-
LOL, well, it always seems to be 109 vs something.
Anyway, as mentioned before, Supermarine test pilot, Jeffrey Quill found the high speed control of the 109E to be even worse than the Spit I, - at 400 mph the ailerons were unmovable, and you would also need a heavy boot on the rudder to keep the plane straight. BTW, this was quite an experience for him, because as a Supermarine pilot he was quite unhappy with the aileron controls of the Spit I and was working on improvements. So, as he put it "We were not the only ones with this problem".
Quill also described the 109 as a "delightful little plane" at low to medium speeds.
A longer stick allows more travel for each kg of force. So my dear GScholz, an equal weight on the top of the stick means that actually the Spitfire needs MORE force than the 109. Had the stick been much shorter, the roll would have been even worse;)
However, the Spitfire wins the looping contest flat out. Old ace Douglas Bader almost lost the pipe out of his mouth when he saw an unknown pilot do 3 consecutive loops (Spit I or II).!!
BTW, F4UDOA: Why did the F4U roll so well? And for that sake, the 190 as well? Anyone?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
That is solid rock. [/B]
Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G
109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G
"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.
" I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams.
Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.
Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.
Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot.
Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
We had also Lauri Mäittälä, he took (unclear tape), he had to evade and exceeded the speed, and the rudders broke off. He fell in a well in the Isthmus. He was later collected from there, he's now there in Askola cemetery.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories.
That is solid rock from people who've really flown a 109.
-
Gsholz/Grendal,
There is no question that below 300MPH the 109 rolled well. But at 400MPH it left much to be desired in the maneuver in comparison to other fighters of it's time.
Even the quotes provided by Grendal support the aileron difficiences at high speed "The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane." The airplane may have been controlable but that does not mean effective maneuvering against an A/C that have full control at highspeeds.
The Kit Carson comments are accepted by the allied supporters and hated by the Luftwaffe supporters. But in fighter pilots speak the phrase "set in cement" applies to the 109 much as it would to the A6M2 based on the NACA test of that aircraft for roll times at 400MPH. The two may not be equal but the analogy is similar.
The initial post of this thread was to show that the 109 was something more than unmaneuverable in the 400MPH+ speed range. I have not seen anything to sway my opinion based on this thread.
My criticism of the 109 series would really begin IMHO in the models after the G-6. Especially the G-10 and K-4 where the accepted top speeds are well above the manueverablity limits of the aircrafts design.
My remarks may seem harsh but IMHO by say mid 1944 the 109's best days were behind and adding weight and power to and aircraft cannot fix desgn limitations. My beloved F4U ran into the same issues when in 1951 they built the AU-1. The AU-1 had a gross loaded weight of almost 20,000LBS. This was no longer the same aircraft because of so much armor plate with the same wing and tail structures.
Angus,
I think I have a pretty good understanding. Stability or instability. The lack of lateral stability caused by the dihedral of the wing from root to tip. From what I understand this is the upslope angle of the wing. The F4U and FW190 were unstable of all three axis giving them the ability to not only maneuver but do it quickly without hesitation. The F4U also had boost tabs on the ailerons which were also fitted to the F6F-5.
What specific part of the 109's design limited the roll rate I do not know. However high aspect ratio and aileron shape can limit rolling as well.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The Kit Carson comments are accepted by the allied supporters and hated by the Luftwaffe supporters.
They are "hated" because the guy has never flown a 109 but pretends he has. This was checked some time ago. His writing is a fairy tale, not something that can be taken as a source.
Read this before further referring to Carson:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html
"This text refers to a famous article,
"The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson
Intention of this page here is to correct serious errors in this particular article, which happened due to a serious lack of knowledge about the 109 technics and design history. "
"Ok, here i have to write a bit more. Carson really does know nothing about the 109, and even worse, he obviously did not inform himself before writing such an article."
Carson is not a source but a fairy tale teller. That's the problem with his text.
The comments on 109 roll rate in high spees varies. Just last Sunday I talked with mr. Erkki Pakarinen, HLeLv 24 Me 109 pilot, who specifically commented that aelerons did not stiff up in high speeds. Same last week with mr. Torsti Tallgren, another 109 pilot. I have the luxury of knowing real life war 109 pilots and being able to ask from them. I take those guys' word rather than Carson's.
-
That is a resource I envy you Grendel, and a resource that is becoming increasingly rare. I hope you're using this resource to it's outmost while you still can, soon it will be too late.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That is a resource I envy you Grendel, and a resource that is becoming increasingly rare. I hope you're using this resource to it's outmost while you still can, soon it will be too late.
I'm doing my best.
Here's the published results so far:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/
I have some 40+ hours of interviews waiting, I'm in good relations with the Finnish war pilots club and this interviewing process is actually one of the Finnish Virtual Pilots Asscoation primary goals. We don't just fly sims! Trying to do one or two interviews before christmas still... :)
-
Grendal,
Two things.
1. The clmax used by the author of that website is for a P-51B with the prop removed (IE no prop wash at at) and 1.48 seems a little high for the 109. What was the condition of the 109 the 1.48 came from? Do you have any stall data on the 109 from say a manual or some other document?
2. Kit Carsons report is based on the RAE evaluation, not test he did himself. He even quotes directly from the report.
Just an example of a more real world Clmax would be from a P-51D based on the stall speeds from the flight manual of 101MPH at 9000lbs power off at sea level.
9,000 * 391 / 101^2 * 234
3519000 / 2387034
=1.47CLmax
With prop installed no power.
-
Well Grendel, I'll be very interested to see more of the stuff you're digging up in interviews. After all, those pilots are becoming fewer and fewer.
I also have had the privilege of spending a day with a 109 Pilot (LW) as well as sharing many days (and beers) with a RAF pilot (Hurris, Spits, P51's). Treasured moments indeed;)
BTW, did mr. Erkki Pakarinen fly the Emil also? For afterthe Emil comes directly the quantum leap in 109's history regarding high speed handling.
Oh, and GScholz, - from your thread, - or rather from you link maybe, there comes the classical example of the Spit's low CL, - and that not adding up to the wing area.
Well, this has been discussed in so many threads before. However, nobody seems to able to explain how a Spitfire with equal power as a 109 will still pull more Newtons to altitude.
I can think of 2 things for starters. Firstly, CL could be underestimated. (miscalculation). Secondly, the Elliptical shape reduction on induced drag is not in the parameters (hehe, all LW freaks say that the elliptical shape is incignificant). Anyway, the fact remains, that although the 109 has a very fine calculated CL, it is no grandiose at pulling NM's. Just wondering, after all, it's mostly about lift....
-
IIRC the Spit-I had more power than the Emil?
-
Seems like US Marine Corps Major Al Williams don't share the opinion that the 109 was hard to control at 400 mph,
US Marine Corps Major Al Williams, Schneider Trophy competitor with his own Kirkham-Williams aircraft, Pulitzer winner from '23 and a head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, had a chance to fly the latest aircraft in the German Luftwaffe's arsenal, Messerchmitt 109 D in summer 1938. Major Williams' view on the capability of the fighter gives an interesting view on the usual commentary about flying and the capabilities of the Bf 109 fighter.
"The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or "yaw" as we call it; neither was there any tendency to "hunt". It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure that any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon be made to feel ashamed of himself.
Seldom do we find a single-seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed.
I checked the control reaction in three stages - one as I have already mentioned, slightly above the stalling speed, and the controls worked beautifully.
In the second stage, about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily.
Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship's straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.
It was at that point that I subjected the ailerons to a critical test. I had pulled out of the dive around 400 mph and had started in a left-hand climbing turn. The ship was banked to about 40 degrees with the left wing low.
I touched the right rudder, pressed forward on it slowly but steadily, moving the control stick to the right, and that Messerschmitt actually snapped out of the left-hand climbing turn into a righthanded climbing turn. That satisfied me. From there on, I tried every acrobatic maneuver I had ever executed in any other single-seater fighter with the exception of the outside loop and the inverted loop."
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-109Dtestflight1938.html
-
LOL Scholzy, comparing the handling of a 109D to a 109G/K is like comparing a Spit I to a later model Spit. One cannot draw any conclusions from a 1938 test flight.:D You is getting desperate.:D
-
Grendel and GScholz,
Every one with a bit of knowledge on Bf 109 knows that Carson's article is full of errors. But it should be also noted that this "counter article (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html) " is about as full of errors, pure myths and selectively quoted sources as was Carson's article (starting from the name of the page "Why Carson was an idiot").
gripen
-
Milo, perhaps you should read the title of this thread.
-
Originally posted by Batz
@ 660kph "was extremely smooth and stable"
Kinda reminded me of F4UDOA's comment "locked in concrete above 400mph"
Smooth and stable's got f___ all to do with stick forces.
-
No **** but if he takes the time to mention something as obtuse as "smooth and stable" don't you think that if stick forces were "locked in concrete" he would have mentioned it? Just as I said above:
From 3.0km during the VNE dive he reached 660kmh. He described it as "smooth and stable" and stated he was "only limited by his altitude". He makes no mention of stick forces and certainly if the controls felt like they were "locked" in concrete he would have commented on it.
Thanks for your well thought out ,well informed reply. It added a lot to current discussion. :p
-
GScholz: The Spit I had less Power than the 109E, and slightly more weight. Engine performance at high alt was also a tad inferior.
However, once the Brits had a proper rotol airscrew on it, it would climb to altitude in the same time or quicker as the 109E. At say 15K that makes more newtons, the difference increasing when looking at Newtons pr hp.
Now, the calculated total lift of the wing is lower according to many sources, i.e. in this thread, so there must be an error somewhere. I tend to belive absolute numbers better than calculated ones at least.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Milo, perhaps you should read the title of this thread.
Gee Scholtzy, I see lots of mention of late model 109s in this thread. Photos as well, even posted by you.:) Are those posts off-topic?
The 109D was 450kg(990lb) lighter than a 109E(max TO) so it would be a 'nicer flier'.
Tell me, did the 109D have engine cutout during the aerobatics, since it was fitted with a carburated Jumo210D. The 109D could not even reach the much stated 450kph, @SL, and only reached 470kph(292mph) at rated altitude.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The initial post of this thread was to show that the 109 was something more than unmaneuverable in the 400MPH+ speed range. I have not seen anything to sway my opinion based on this thread.
Of course, since your opinion is set in concrete... I guess not even a letter signed by the Pope would ever change your mind.
My criticism of the 109 series would really begin IMHO in the models after the G-6. Especially the G-10 and K-4 where the accepted top speeds are well above the manueverablity limits of the aircrafts design.
You mix up IAS and TAS... Not even those very late versions could attain 400 mph IAS, at which you claim it was cement like, at any altitude in level flight. At most altitudes, they could go no faster than 300 mph IAS, mostly less than that. And even you admitted they were fine at those speeds.
-
Originally posted by gripen
The Spitfire V had overall better aileron controll than Bf 109F, specially at high speed, at low speed Bf 109F had lighter but not as effective lateral controll as Spitfire V.
gripen
I don`t agree with this latter. The NACA`s testing of MkVA shows the control forces were excessive on the Spit, so much that even when using full stickforce (40lbs) the ailerons could not be fully deflected above as slow as 140 mph IAS... other Mk V tests show that at 400mph, the Spit V would have required 71 lbs (almost twice the possible force!) just to deflect ailerons to less than half (10.3 degrees), and produce a roll rate of 45 degrees /sec. The rates of roll in degree are neither anything inspiring, I bet you are well aware of these results :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg)
One can draw any 109F roll rate figures, even your ones over this graph, but I doubt we would find any spot where the Spit requires either less stickforce, or would produce a higher rate of roll than the Friedrich.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Do you have any stall data on the 109 from say a manual or some other document?
2. Kit Carsons report is based on the RAE evaluation, not test he did himself. He even quotes directly from the report.
1.
No stall data I'm afraid.
G-2 pilot notes say...
Landing...
Slow down to 220 kph
Set pitch control to automatic
Extend undercarriage
Flaps fully down
Approach speed 180
109 G-6 manual says...
Landing speed ca. 160 km/h
Take-off run 400 m
(landing)
Glide speed 200-220 km/h
At threshold lower to 180 km/h
2.
Carson's report is mix of evaluations and his own fantasies. If he is talking about one airframe, why his expnalation includes bits from 109 E, F, G and K models? He happily mixes all the various models together and acts like he has flown one.
-
Originally posted by Batz
From 3.0km during the VNE dive he reached 660kmh. He described it as "smooth and stable" and stated he was "only limited by his altitude". He makes no mention of stick forces and certainly if the controls felt like they were "locked" in concrete he would have commented on it.
Yeah that's pretty conclusive evidence. :rolleyes: :lol
-
PS Stick forces are inversely proportional to stability. Oops.
-
Dear Isegrim,
I have been so worried about you, where have you been?
So lets look converted DVL Bf 109F-2 data again:
IAS 30lbs 50lbs
mph deg/s deg/s
200 80 80
240 65 85
280 50 88
320 37 90
360 22 45
400 11 25
At 30lbs stick force Spitfire V has better rate of roll above about 240mph IAS.
At 50lbs stick force Spitfire V has better rate of roll below 260mph IAS and above 350mph IAS.
Clipped wing Spitfire does far better at all speeds.
One thing makes me wonder if DVL had some super human test pilots. Data sets contains points where stick force is more than 25kg (about 55lbs), that's quite alot above max force you mentioned? I also wonder why RAE and NACA did tests on 50lbs if such force was impossible? Why RAE rated 60lbs as practical maximum? And the report on Joint Fighter Conference contains several pilots claims about higher than 50lbs stick forces?
BTW you might like to know that the NACA chart you posted is from one of those reports I gave to Niklas.
gripen
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
When did I called anyone a pedophile, Liar ? You are so pathethic with your lies about others, all you have did on this thread is making up ugly stories about others. You are a child, others got it right.
:confused: Emmmm sorry Isegrim.. but you are either very forgetful.. Or just trying to hide the fact that you did call someone a pedophile!
I saw that very post milo is talking about over in the IL2 forum.. It was in a thread where many of your posts were so inflammatory that the MOD's had to delete them.. One being the one that contained the pedophile statement!!
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Gee Scholtzy, I see lots of mention of late model 109s in this thread. Photos as well, even posted by you.:) Are those posts off-topic?
The 109D was 450kg(990lb) lighter than a 109E(max TO) so it would be a 'nicer flier'.
Tell me, did the 109D have engine cutout during the aerobatics, since it was fitted with a carburated Jumo210D. The 109D could not even reach the much stated 450kph, @SL, and only reached 470kph(292mph) at rated altitude.
He DIVED it to 400+ mph.
EDIT: No the engine did not cut out as you would have known had you actually bothered to read what he said.
"I touched the right rudder, pressed forward on it slowly but steadily, moving the control stick to the right, and that Messerschmitt actually snapped out of the left-hand climbing turn into a righthanded climbing turn. That satisfied me. From there on, I tried every acrobatic maneuver I had ever executed in any other single-seater fighter with the exception of the outside loop and the inverted loop."
-
Originally posted by Angus
GScholz: The Spit I had less Power than the 109E, and slightly more weight. Engine performance at high alt was also a tad inferior.
However, once the Brits had a proper rotol airscrew on it, it would climb to altitude in the same time or quicker as the 109E. At say 15K that makes more newtons, the difference increasing when looking at Newtons pr hp.
Now, the calculated total lift of the wing is lower according to many sources, i.e. in this thread, so there must be an error somewhere. I tend to belive absolute numbers better than calculated ones at least.
Oh? I always thought the Spit Ia had a bit more power.
What I can find on the Spit Ia with Merlin III is:
Max power: 1,175 hp (max continuous unknown)
Initial climb rate: 2,820 fpm (with Rotol C/S propeller)
Ceiling: 34k
Max speed: 355 mph
Empty weight: 5,067 lbs
Loaded weight: 6,409 lbs
And on the 109-E4 with DB601A
Max power: 1,050 hp, 1,100 hp or 1,175 hp (max continuous 800 hp or 1,000 hp) sources vary.
Initial climb rate: 3,280 fpm
Ceiling: 36k
Max speed: 356 mph
Empty weight: 4,856 lbs
Loaded weight: 5,532 lbs
One can clearly see that the Spit Ia is much cleaner aerodynamically than the 109-E4, the Spit with more weight achieving similar top speed. However the 109 is the better climber with its lower weight.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
I have been so worried about you, where have you been?
Away. If you are very interested in the details, fetch a mail. Next question.
So lets look converted DVL Bf 109F-2 data again:
Oh indeed dear gripen, let`s look at YOUR data instead the real data...
I just keep wondering, why you only give your own "adjusted" dataset, instead of the original one recorded by DVL, and why do you keep ignoring half a dozen sources that say your way is the wrong way ? These are questions worth to think of.
At 30lbs stick force Spitfire V has better rate of roll above about 240mph IAS.
Certainly, but then your maths must be a whole different than my one.
Let`s see. The NACA roll chart, which shows an actual test with Spit MkV. It shows 55 deg/sec at 280 mph w. 30 lbs stickforce
You claim your converted 109F-2`s roll rate is 50 deg/sec at 30 lbs, which would be just the same, even if we would ignore that your numbers are quite dubious and underrate it`s performance by a factor of 2.5, and conflict all the independent sources already mentioned.
Well let`s see how a G-2/trop behaved according to those who flew it :
A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf.
That is 80-90 deg/sec at 285 mph w. 20 lbs stick force for the G-2.
According to my, admittedly basic mathematical background, ~85 deg/sec is a higher roll rate than 55 deg/sec, and 20 lbs is less than 30 lbs.
At 50lbs stick force Spitfire V has better rate of roll below 260mph IAS and above 350mph IAS.
Clipped wing Spitfire does far better at all speeds.
At least according to you, dear Gripen. I`d like you to prove that one too.. until then, it remains a claim.
One thing makes me wonder if DVL had some super human test pilots. Data sets contains points where stick force is more than 25kg (about 55lbs), that's quite alot above max force you mentioned?
I mentioned (actually qouted) 40 lbs stick force maximum achievable on Spit VA, at least according to the NACA. I don`t see how the DVL comes into light, dear Gripen, after all, these are the maximum available sideway stick forces for the Spit VA, not any other plane.
I also wonder why RAE and NACA did tests on 50lbs if such force was impossible? Why RAE rated 60lbs as practical maximum? And the report on Joint Fighter Conference contains several pilots claims about higher than 50lbs stick forces?
I also wonder why it is so hard for you to get over the following sentence by NACA on Spit MkV:
The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 lbs on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained only up to about 130 miles per hour. Beyond this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum deflection prevented full motion of the control stick. Only one-half of the available deflection was reached with a 40 lbs stick force at 300 miles per hour, with the result that the pb/2V obtainable at this speed was reduced to 0.04 radian, or one-half that reached at low speeds.
BTW you might like to know that the NACA chart you posted is from one of those reports I gave to Niklas.
That was hardly a surprise given your previous statements, but I hardly see what that makes any different.
Oh, and I still wonder why don`t you post the original figures of DVL, or the relavant parts (stick force, aileron deflection, aileron effectiveness and the original roll rate) at 400 mph or around... I bet others wonder about this, too.
-
Originally posted by tagert
:confused: Emmmm sorry Isegrim.. but you are either very forgetful.. Or just trying to hide the fact that you did call someone a pedophile!
I saw that very post milo is talking about over in the IL2 forum.. It was in a thread where many of your posts were so inflammatory that the MOD's had to delete them.. One being the one that contained the pedophile statement!!
Aha! So tagert (who, just for the record, spent hundreds of posts on kicking the 109), you also saw such "pedophile" posts from me. That`s great, then you can also show a link to it !
Oh wait, you just suddenly can`t, because it was *deleted*. But that`s not a problems, since Mods at Ubi.com never delete posts completely, just edit it, and that`s is visible by a text like "This post was edited by Vengenze at... " or some text like that. So I guess it would be VERY easy for you to just post the URL to such a thread where I must definitely must have (according to you) one of such edited posts...
OH silly of me, I forgot, you can`t, because this one was one VERY special one, and just completely disappeared without a trace. Like as, say, "Chuchain Uishna", Milo Morai`s alternate nickname which he used at ubi.com to reply to his own post, supporting his own POV, or just kissing his own butt ... :rofl
Did you just say "inflammatory"? Strange, that`s one of Milo`s favourite expressions... And you`re from Canada, too. What a coincidence. I wonder if one would do an IP check, it would turn out you two live in the same household.. :D
I wonder how many newly registered nicks will appear on this thread :lol to support somebody`s statements who does nothing else on every BB than flaming, and as a result, is soon ignored as a clown.
-
Squirm Barbi, squirm.:D:D
You have been told Cuchulain (note the spelling) is my brother who has no use for such a mentally and emotionally disturbed ultra melon as you.
As to the thread tagert referred to, it was cut down from 17 pages to 10 pages by the Moderators by deleting your obnoxious posts and the replies to them. When is the last time you told someone to lick a 'bunghole' Barbi? People can look on page 50 or 51 of the General Discussion forum for a 10 pg thread. They will find 'bunghole' references. Does SkyChimp, Bearcat, Bluttorski, Cajun and several others have to post confirming you called someone a pedophile?
Ignored as a clown Barbi? Is that why you don't post at Ubi any more? A laughing stock you are there, just like on the old OnWar forums.:D Even your bud Huckie is given more respect than you. When you show up in a thread, it is like flies to the manure.
LOL, you don't even fly online because you find it too emotionally stressful.:D
-
I can't believe there is this much debate over the 109E. You guys must be completely stupid. The 109E sucked. All the 109s sucked. Ahnold the Governator himself couldn't have gotten more than about 1 degree a second out of that poorly designed Nazi slave labour built airplane.
You know why I know all this stuff? Because GERMANY LOST THE WAR! That means all of the stuff they were using sucked. You guys need to play more video games and read less revisionist propoganda.
-
anyone have any luftwaff flight tests on the spit?
since they were done in comparison to the 109
it seems like they would be very enlightening to the
whole debate.
germans? got any books on spit evaluations by lw.
-
Funny how people, whos not flown any kind of a fighter, argues against the words of real life 109 pilots.
Always amazes me why they insist to do it so stubbornly and solidly as if they'd flown one....
-
That is because the German fighter pilots are LIARS! Don't forget, they are all slave owning nazi criminals who want THEIR video game planes to be TEH BEST EVAR!1!!11!!1one
-
Dear Isegrim,
Again, Southwood's does not claim if the speed is IAS or TAS nor altitude. At certain altitude DVL results match well with Southwoods numbers, generally if not otherwise stated then speed is TAS. And I don't know how did he test stick forces. In the case of the DVL report everything is documented well. You have just picked up one not so well defined anecdotal claim because it just happens to support your agenda.
My best quess for the low stick force in the NACA Spitfire test is a weak pilot. RAE 2361 states clearly 60lbs as practical limit for Spitfire. RAE 2507 gives measured dataset up to 67lbs on tests of Spitfire. RAE 1231 mentions no problems to reach 50lbs. NACA 868 gives numbers on 50lbs. It should be also noted that even at 30lbs Spitfire V rolls about as well as Bf 109F-2 with 50lbs at 400mph IAS. Again you have just picked up one statement among many because it just happens to support your agenda best.
As noted several times before DVL report will be released after something else comes out first. Or you can find it yourself, as most of good stuff it's available from a well known public archive. Alternatively you can ask Niklas...
BTW about your quoting it should be noted that "Lentäjän näkökulma II" actually says: "Sauvan vieminen laitaan 450 km/h nopeudelta vaati yli kymmenen kilon voiman". And Kokko's report does not claim stick forces at all.
gripen
-
gripen send me a e-mail please i can´t contact you over the board
Stefan_L_01@yahoo.de
thx
niklas
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Aha! So tagert (who, just for the record, spent hundreds of posts on kicking the 109), you also saw such "pedophile" posts from me. That`s great, then you can also show a link to it !
Oh wait, you just suddenly can`t, because it was *deleted*. But that`s not a problems, since Mods at Ubi.com never delete posts completely, just edit it, and that`s is visible by a text like "This post was edited by Vengenze at... " or some text like that. So I guess it would be VERY easy for you to just post the URL to such a thread where I must definitely must have (according to you) one of such edited posts...
Actully you are incorrect with regards to MOD's at ubi.com never deleting and just editing... They typically just edit, but do have the power to delet.
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
OH silly of me,
Agreed 100%
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I forgot,
Im use to that from you.
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
you can`t, because this one was one VERY special one, and just completely disappeared without a trace. Like as, say, "Chuchain Uishna", Milo Morai`s alternate nickname which he used at ubi.com to reply to his own post, supporting his own POV, or just kissing his own butt ... :rofl
See above, as with 109 data, flettner tabs being standard production on 109K alerions, 109's having a beter rear view then a bubble top P51, etc you are wrong once again!
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Did you just say "inflammatory"? Strange, that`s one of Milo`s favourite expressions... And you`re from Canada, too. What a coincidence. I wonder if one would do an IP check, it would turn out you two live in the same household.. :D
Well alot of people say that word here, and alot of people here take a bath once a day.. Is that all it takes to set off the conspericy police in your neck of the woods.. Or does it just set off those voices in your head? :eek: PS sunny Sothern CA here, not canookland! ;)
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I wonder how many newly registered nicks will appear on this thread :lol to support somebody`s statements who does nothing else on every BB than flaming, and as a result, is soon ignored as a clown.
Im sure you wonder about alot of things... But the FACT remains that the ubi.com mods have the power to delete if deemed necssary.. They only use it when dealing with a real nasty thread that has nothing of value in it... otherwise they would have took the time to edit out the bad and leave the good parts... Sense your posts had nothing good in them, it was just ezer to delete the whole thing. Does that help you out? Or are you still wondering about why they were deleted?
-
Hi again GScholz.
Nice having those figures on the Spit II
I have some data on a Spit I climbing to 20K in comparison with 109 Data. The Spitfire has a Rotol CS airscrew, and is rated at 1030 hp, - fuel is 87 octane, the test is done in 1939 I think.
109 is rated at 1075 hp, - not a lot of difference. I presume that the Spitty is delivering 1030 hp on 87 octanes.
Anyway, the Spitty is some 20 seconds faster to 20K, and while being heavier also that makes 16607250000 NM or a torque of 2156785714 NM/time while the 109 prompts 16126875000 NM or 2015859375 NM/time.
That gives the 109 a mere 93% effectiveness compared to the Spit on the category of turning weight into altitude at time, and pr hp the 109 is down to 90%.
Dang, gotta fix that decimal error on the NM, but the proportions are right ;)
Anyway, it seems like the Spitty started to outperform the Emil in the Climbing sector as soon as it had a decent airscrew.
For the other end of the line, 109K vs the Spit XIV I would need the weight and climbing time of the 109K to run the same kind of test, - but if memory serves me the 109K only took about 4,5 minutes.
Now, calculating Newtons does not give one the platform to get into "what if's" about reduced weight influenting climb, - but none the less a rough idea. I'll look into it later.
Well, looking forward for more data.
;)
-
Which Spit and 109E were you testing, and what was the time to 20k for the Spit?
-
109E-3 and Spit I
Time to 20K for the Spit is 7 minutes and 40 seconds.
I really do need more 109 data though. Have any?
-
Oh, and a Spit II, 120 lbs heavier, but boosted up to 1100 hp+ (100 octane) will go to 20K in 7 minutes smooth.
That is, if it has a CS airscrew.
-
Angus,
109E had 990 PS at SL to use for climb, altough you will need to convert that to BHP (x ~0.97)... The 1000 HP+ figure you qoute is for a 1-min special WEP, and not used in climb for sure. So you have roughly about 950 BHP on the Bf 109E at SL... but don`t make much calculation based on that, as power varies to much with altitude (it`s NOT constant!!) to use that for a range of altitude. You may try to compare climb rates vs. power at a given altitude perhaps..
I will respond to Gripen later once I will have some extra time. As for the two idiots, I guess the fact they can`t post a simple URL to back up their claim makes it evident enough, and in any case they only want to flame here, so why help them in that.
-
Bf109E-1/3
SL
1175hp at 2400rpm for 1 min. (433l/h)
1015hp at 2400 for 5 min. (321l/h)
950hp at 2300rpm for 30 min. (288l/h)
860hp at 2200rpm continuous (260l/h)
@ altitude
1100hp at 3.7km for 5 min. (318l/h)
1050hp at 4.1 continuous (297l/h)
1000hp at 4.5km continuous (283l/h)
975hp at 3.85 continuous (economical) (269l/h)
from L.Dv.556/3
-
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/DB601Apowercurve.jpg)
-
hmm
Looks like the DB performs worse than I thought.
BTW, a correction,- my data was from an E-4, not E-3
Were there no power upgrades to the 109E during the BoB? At least, RR made some, the Spit II was already coming in with 100 octane levelling out at 1175 bhp if I remember right.
I wonder about the Merlins power then. I mean, were these 1030 hp available at SL for a climb with 87 oct fuel, or were there 1030 bhp through the gate only?
I am sure Gripen could help out there.
Isegrim: Do you happen to have data about the 109K, - weight and climb, - and power????
-
See this link for an example of Barbi's butt licking comments.
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yycds&tpage=7&direction=0
-
RAE testing of the BF109E-3
Aeroplane and Armament Establishment
Boscombe Down
10 June 1940
Messerschmidt 109 Fighter
Brief Handling Trials
Conclusions
.......In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics.
Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA
1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.
2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.
3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.
4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.
5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.
Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
September 1940
Messerschmitt Me.109.
Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
Conclusions
.......Take off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aeroplane.
.......Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change in directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
.......Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.
.......The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.
.......At 400 m.p.h a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb2 for the Me 109 ailerons were estimated to be -0.145.
.......The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire.
other info
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bank45.gif
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
-
"In general flying qualities the aeroplane [109] is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight."
This conclusion alone invalidates the entire report. It is either bias, propaganda or incompetence in flying the 109.
-
yer all dweebs for getting so worked up over it.
-
You forgot the fourth possibility... which is that the Bf109E was inferior to the Hurricane and Spitfire at all speeds and all conditions of flight.
-
Well since Urchin has added his knotted panties to the laundry ... apparently because someone dared to impune the righteous and awesome abilities of the 109 .... then this thread is pretty damned ok. :D
Yay video games. Nazis sucked at everything anyway. :lol
-
Hello again...thread.
I've seen that biased report before. Well, biased normally, for the given time it was done. Just again though, I wish we had german comparison trials for the same.
However, something in that report shook up my merory a bit. Heavy elevators and the effects of those in combat it was.
Now since everybody has mentioned the importance of ailerons in combat, how about the response of ailerons.
I remember an article about the vices of the 109, very much stating its elevators heaviness as uncomfortable and insufficient.
Are elevators less important than ailerons? Well, once at high speed, and ALSO with heavy ailerons, elevators might as well be crucial.
I have seen some remarks that pulling 109's into a high speed-heavy-G-maneuver was very tough, - earlier models presumably being harder on the pilot.
Charlie Brown (if anyone remembers the start of this thread) also remarks the 109 being rather easy to loop, and the minimum looping speed at 280 mph. Hmmm 280 MPH?
From that, - easy at it is, it seems to me that the Emil, regardless of roll rate has a very limited pitch/loop range. The Spitfire will definately loop at 180 mph, - entering a loop at a typical 300 mph, it will loop twice consecutively. At very high speed, when the 109 pilot will have to pull the stick with a lot of force, the Spit pilot will still do the same pitch single-handedly. Actually too easily, so later variants of Spits had their elevator control weighted-up according to speed in order to prevent overcontrolling.
Anyway, something also of interest, - pitch control in the turn, - at high speeds, plane rolled almost to 90 degrees, stick needs to be pulled as much as possible, - where would the 109 pilot be in the first seconds compared to the Spitty jock? just wondering.....any figures of instantaneous turns?.
Maybe that's where the myth of Spits out-turning 109's so easily comes from. The first seconds....
Just wondering..
-
There are (British) kill ratios of the Bf109 against both the Spitfire and the Hurricane, throughout the BoB.
Regardless of the discussion here, it at least proves that the Bf109 was capable of shooting down quite a large number of Spitfires.
-
Uhmm I think its pretty clear both were competitive fighters. I think this discussion of which wing was 5% more efficent or whatnot is really pointless and wierd...
Plus everyone knows Bf109 is much meaner than a spit, its downright evil in fact.
-
Would be nice to know if one managed to do 300% more loops than the other, or swiftly do a high break at high speed with twice the agility. Really.....
-
I'm not sure if Spitfire's nose configuration was a very good one in terms of aerodynamics. The 109E had its propeller quite low compared to Spit and I think the 109F had it even lower. At least the center of the torque is closer to the aircrafts COG which sounds as a good thing. Some sources say the Spit had a lower drag coeff than 109 but some say they were nearly the same?
Have you seen the test where DB was installed on Spitfire? That would reveal at least the effect of the propellor positioned lower when compared to original position seen on Spit.
-C+
-
That's true, the Germans fitted a DB to a Spit, I have pictures of that somewhere.
Can't recall what kind of DB and what mark of Spit it was though, and the remarks on relative performance were not detailed. Also not a word on flying characteristics.
Maybe some loony, I mean someone with a deep interest in historical aviation and too much money will try a conversion again? There are still Buchons with Merlins flying you know... maybe someone has a leftover Spit and a DB somewhere...
;)
-
Butch2k posted the climb and speed charts for the Spit V with DB 605A on his board.
It had a max speed of 608 km/h (if I'm reading the chart right. I'm used to altitude on the vertical axis, speed/climb on the horizontal) .
It was about 25 km/h faster than the Merlin 45 engined Spit V up to 4km, the Merlin engined Spit was then 10 - 15km/h faster up to 6.5km, and the DB engined Spit was faster above that.
Climb rate at 0m was about 21 m/s.
The Spitfire had all aramament removed, and weighed 2,730KG for the tests.
-
DB605!!!! That is a lot of power for a Spit V! Must be like 100 hp more.
So the nose effext seems to be minimal, 25 kph it is but with a weighted down aircraft with more power..hmmm
-
So the nose effext seems to be minimal, 25 kph it is but with a weighted down aircraft with more power..hmmm
Because of all the equipment they removed (notably the armament), the Spit V with DB605 was actually about 500lbs lighter than a standard Spit V.
-
No it doesn't seem like they were too impressed with the Spit V.
-
?.???
This is all a bit confusing.
Firstly: GScholz; what do you mean?
Secondly, this particular effect of installing a DB605 in a Spit5 is a tad confusing.
The power increase is roughly that of jumping from Spit5 to Spit9, and also there should be a positive effect from a better "center", while DECREASING weight. Still, the performance increase is from marginal to negative. Something is wrong here....:confused:
-
My point: The Germans put a more powerful engine in the Spit V and reduced the weight. Yet their test results are just marginally better than British test results. Either the Germans were underestimating their results for propaganda reasons or the British were overestimation their test results for the same reason. I tend to lean toward the latter considering that the Spit V served at a low point in the war for the RAF and were being slaughtered by LW 190s and 109s (in Africa and over the Channel/France).
-
I think I can tell by GScholz's avatar that he has absolutely no bias regarding this topic whatsoever. :D
-
The Flip Side of the coin:
Going from Spit V to Spit IX was made out of similar power increase but weight also increased.
So, either that DB605+centering was not delivering that power properly (unexpected problems either with c of g, cooling, or drag), or it was the propoganda machine saying: "The Spit airframe is obsolete"
Anyway, by stuffing a more powerful Merlin into that airframe, the Performance surely ran up!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I think I can tell by GScholz's avatar that he has absolutely no bias regarding this topic whatsoever. :D
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
The Flip Side of the coin:
Going from Spit V to Spit IX was made out of similar power increase but weight also increased.
So, either that DB605+centering was not delivering that power properly (unexpected problems either with c of g, cooling, or drag), or it was the propoganda machine saying: "The Spit airframe is obsolete"
Anyway, by stuffing a more powerful Merlin into that airframe, the Performance surely ran up!
Spit IX had a new airframe.
-
Spit 9 had a beefed up (strenght issue) Spit V airframe.
That's why it got into production before earlier mark variants, - the production line did not have to change that much.
Another benefit was that the difference was not easy to see. The Germans did not know what they were up against before it was too late.
Beefed up by about 200 hp, but also somewhat heavier, the performance was nice.
So why could they not copy that with a DB 605 ?
-
Oh, here comes the difference between Spit V and Spit IX with a tad more accuracy.
Merlin 45 goes to Merlin 61. Increase in HP is from 1470 to 1565, - i.e. 95 hp, but the powercurve of the Merlin 61 is much better at alt.
Increase in weight is 550 lbs empty.
Increase in performance is significant, climb 6:24 to 20K instead of 7:30., max speed 408 mph instead of 374, - that makes a whooping 34 mph (54 km/h) increase in speed.
By comparison, the DB605 should do about the same power as the Merlin 61 (I seem to recall some LW fans stating it was better!), so a plane 1000 lbs lighter with a DB605 really should do better!
BTW, Yugo Hurricanes were fitted with the DB601, and that yealded a decent increase in speed and climb. The DB601 giving less power than the original Merlin! Must have been a better airscrew then?!?!?!?
-
And On we go (more data). From the comparison test:
"After a couple of weeks, and with a new yellow-painted nose, the Spitfire returne to Echterdingen. Ellenreider was the first to try the aircraft. He was stunned that the aircraft had much better visibility and handling on the ground than the Bf.109. It took off before he realised it and had an impressive climb rate, around 70 ft. (21 m.) per second. Much of the Spitfire's better handling could be attributed to its lower wing loading. "
"The Messerschmitt was faster at low altitude, but at 11,000 ft. (3350 m) the speeds evened out. The DB 605A engine gave better performance, according to the test group, than the Merlin, which was rated 150 hp below the German engine"
Looks like the Germans were actually rather impressed with the little Spitty. Well No wonder with that power to weight ratio.
Now the only thing that bothers me really, is why this plane should not outperform the Spit IX.......